User:EmmaCoop/sandbox/2022 California Proposition 1

Proposition 1

November 8, 2022 (2022-11-08) (in -737 days)
Constitutional right to reproductive freedom
Outcome	To be determined
Results by counties and districts Yes:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90% No:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%
Source: California Secretary of State

Proposition 1, titled Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom and initially known as Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 (SCA 10), is a California ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment that will appear in the general election on November 8, 2022. If passed, the proposition will amend the Constitution of California to explicitly grant the right to an abortion and contraceptives. The decision to codify abortion rights in the state constitution was precipitated by Politico's publishing of a leaked draft opinion showing the United States Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, reversing judicial precedent that held that the US constitution protected the right to an abortion.

As a joint effort by California Governor Gavin Newsom, Senate President pro tempore Toni Atkins, and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, the constitutional amendment passed in the California State Senate in a 29–8 vote on June 20, 2022, and 58–17 in the California State Assembly on June 27, ahead of a June 30 deadline to have the amendment voted upon in November 2022. On July 1, California Secretary of State Shirley Weber formally designated the amendment as Proposition 1, making the proposed constitutional amendment the first abortion‑related ballot measure in California since Proposition 4 in 2008, a rejected initiative that would have imposed a waiting period on abortions and parental notification in the case of minors.

Background

California abortion law

Further information: Abortion in California

In the first session of the California State Legislature in 1850, the legislature passed the Crimes and Punishments Act, which criminalized an abortion under all circumstances except to save a woman's life. The State Legislature amended California's abortion law in 1967 with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, signed by Governor Ronald Reagan in June, which extended the right to an abortion to women in cases of rape and incest up to 20 weeks of pregnancy. In 1969, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling in People v. Belous that upheld the right to an abortion and struck out section 274 of the California Penal Code, which had defined the punishment for people who provided, supplied, or administered an abortion. The California Supreme Court would issue another ruling in 1981 with Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers that the constitutionally protected right to privacy included the right to choose whether to have an abortion, preventing Medi-Cal from restricting abortion coverage.

In September 1987, Governor George Deukmejian signed Assembly Bill 2274, legislation that required unemancipated minors have parental consent before receiving an abortion, providing an exception for medical emergencies. The parental consent law was upheld in a 4–3 ruling by the California Supreme Court in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, with the majority stating that the constitutional right to privacy did not extend to minors due to them not having the same rights as adults. The law was found unconstitutional in a rehearing of Lungren in 1997, with the California Supreme Court ruling that AB 2274 violated the right to privacy provided in the state constitution. The law received a rehearing after two members of the 1996 majority decision retired and were succeeded by Governor Pete Wilson's appointees.

In 2002, Governor Gray Davis signed the Reproductive Privacy Act, which legalized abortion up to fetal viability, whereafter abortions can only be performed if continued pregancy posed a risk to the woman's life. In 2015, Governor Jerry Brown signed the Reproductive FACT (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency) Act, requiring crisis pregnancy centers to disclose that the state provides family planning services, prenatal care, and abortion at low to no cost and state that they are unlicensed medical facilities. The law was struck down as unconstitutional in a 5–4 ruling in 2018 by the United States Supreme Court in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, finding that the FACT Act violated the First Amendment. In 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed the College Student Right to Access Act, which required all universities in the University of California and California State University to provide abortion medication on all campuses, the first law of its kind in the United States, entering into effect in January 2023. Newsom's predecessor, Brown, had vetoed a similar bill in 2018.

In the 2021–22 session of the State Legislature, 16 bills were introduced in either the Assembly or the Senate to improve abortion access and legal protections in the state. Before Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 passed in the State Legislature, two of the bills had been signed into law by California Governor Gavin Newsom, which eliminated out-of-pocket expenses for abortions and protected Californians from civil liability cases in states with contradictory abortion laws. California's move to strengthen abortion rights was part of a broader effort throughout the United States in anticipation of the United States Supreme Court case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which would potentially result in the court overturning or weakening Roe v. Wade. The legislation and actions taken by Newsom represent California becoming a sanctuary state for abortion rights, which had previously been used in reference to the state's response to immigration.

By the end of the session on August 31, the State Legislature passed an additional series of legislation. One such bill passed to further protect people from out‑of‑state litigation related to abortion, prohibiting California law enforcement agencies from cooperating with authorities in other states on abortion‑related investigations in cases where it is legal in California and increasing digital privacy protections by banning tech companies from providing whatever reproductive information they have with authorities enforcing abortion bans. Other legislation would impose limitations on the sharing of medical records and no longer compel coroners to investigate self-induced or criminal abortions or allow prosecution or civil action against people based on a fetal death certificate. The legislation would also allow nurse practitioners to carry out the procedure without physician supervision, limit the suspension of licensing and certification of abortion providers, permit out‑of‑state residents access to the Abortion Practical Support Fund to help them obtain abortions, create a website for in‑state abortion services, and establishing grants for providers and programs that assist low‑income and at‑risk communities.

Previous propositions

In 2005, 2006, and 2008, there were three initiatives – Proposition 73, Proposition 85, and Proposition 4 respectively – that would have established parental notification and a mandatory waiting period on abortions in California. All three proposals were rejected by the voters. Proposition 73 caused concern for its opponents by defining abortion as the "death of the unborn child" instead of using clinical terms such as fetus or embryo. When Proposition 85 was placed on the ballot in 2006, the proposed constitutional amendment instead defined abortion as "the use of any means to terminate the pregnancy" over the 2005 definition. The parental notification initiative underwent another revision before appearing on the 2008 ballot, allowing doctors to notify an adult family member other than the parent if the latter was abusive. The three‑time effort to establish a parental notification law in California was largely funded by San Diego Reader owner Jim Holman and winemaker Don Sebastiani. 2008 marked the last time California voters decided on an abortion‑related proposition.

Impetus for new proposition

See also: Abortion in the United States

Gavin Newsom, Toni Atkins, and Anthony Rendon jointly called for a constitutional amendment on abortion after the leaked draft opinion of Dobbs

On May 2, 2022, Politico published a leaked draft opinion of Dobbs, which showed the Supreme Court overturning Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and determining that the US constitution does not grant a right to an abortion. In response to the draft opinion, Governor Newsom, Senate President pro tempore Toni Atkins, and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon issued a joint statement of their intent to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution through an amendment. On June 24, the Supreme Court overturned both Roe and Casey, with the final opinion being largely similar to the leaked draft opinion. Due to the Supreme Court decision and abortion bans in other states, California experienced an increase of patients seeking abortions, with Planned Parenthood saying that the majority of new patients came from Texas. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the number of patients seeking abortions in California could increase from 46,000 to 1.4 million on an annual basis.

California is one of six US states that will have an abortion‑related ballot measure in 2022, the most to occur in the US in a single year, with votes also occurring in Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, and Vermont. Of the six, three – California, Michigan, and Vermont – will ask voters to enshrine the right to an abortion in their respective state constitutions while the other states are working to implement restrictive abortion policies. On August 2, Kansas voters rejected their proposed constitutional amendment that would have stated that the state constitution did not grant the right to an abortion. There was uncertainty whether abortion rights would be put to a vote in Michigan, with the initiative having collected more than 700,000 signatures, the most for any petition in state history, as the Michigan Board of State Canvassers rejected the initiative in a 2–2 vote split between Democrats and Republicans on August 31. On September 8, the Michigan Supreme Court ordered the Board of State Canvassers to certify the initiative and place it on the ballot, which the board did the next day on September 9.

Constitutional changes

If passed, Proposition 1 would add Section 1.1 to Article I of the state constitution to read:

The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual's reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives. This section is intended to further the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed by Section 1, and the constitutional right to not be denied equal protection guaranteed by Section 7. Nothing herein narrows or limits the right to privacy or equal protection.

Legislative process

Senate

Result of the Senate vote by district
     For      Against      Did not vote

On June 8, 2022, Atkins introduced Senate Constitutional Amendment 10, co‑authored by Rendon and other Democrats in the state legislature to codify a constitutional right to an abortion. Atkins stated that SCA 10 would codify abortion and contraception protections that already exist in California state law. For the constitutional amendment to appear on the November 2022 ballot, it had to pass through two‑thirds of both houses of the California State Legislature by June 30. And so, SCA 10 moved through the legislative process at an unusually fast pace, passing in Senate committees within days of introduction.

On June 14, SCA 10 passed in a 9–1 vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, with the lone vote against coming from a Republican. The proposed amendment also passed in the Senate Elections and Amendments Committee in a 3–1 vote on the same day. On June 16, SCA 10 passed 5–2 in the Senate Appropriations Committee. After having cleared through all of the committees the amendment was assigned to, the Senate voted 29–8 on June 20 to pass SCA 10, which occurred along party lines. Democratic senators Bob Archuleta and Bob Wieckowski and Republican senator Andreas Borgeas did not record a vote on the amendment.

Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 – Vote in the Senate (June 20, 2022)

Party		Votes for	Votes against	Not voting
	Democratic (31)	29	–	2
	Republican (9)	–	8	1
Total (40)		29	8	3

Assembly

Result of the Assembly vote by district
     For      Against      Did not vote

On June 23, the Assembly Judiciary Committee passed the amendment in a 7–2 vote. On June 27, the Assembly voted 58–17 to pass SCA 10, allowing the amendment to be put to a vote before California voters in the 2022 general election. Suzette Martinez Valladares was the only Republican to vote in favor of SCA 10, with her justification being, "While I am personally pro-life with exceptions, I believe that voters should have a choice in deciding this issue in November." Democratic assemblymembers Ken Cooley, Tim Grayson, and Robert Rivas, Republican assemblymember Phillip Chen, and independent assemblymember Chad Mayes did not record a vote.

Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 – Vote in the Assembly (June 27, 2022)

Party		Votes for	Votes against	Not voting
	Democratic (60)	57	–	3
	Republican (19)	1	17	1
	Independent (1)	–	–	1
Total (80)		58	17	5

Campaign

Designation and legislative analysis

On July 1, 2022, California Secretary of State Shirley Weber designated SCA 10 as Proposition 1 for the November 2022 election, being one of seven ballot propositions in the general election. Proposition 1 was later given the ballot title "Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom" by July 8.

For voter information guide provided by the Secretary of State, the Legislative Analyst's Office did not find that Proposition 1 had any fiscal effect, unless a court interprets the proposition as expanding reproductive rights beyond existing law. The LAO also explained the effect of voting yes or no, which is as follows:

A YES vote on this measure means: The California Constitution would be changed to expressly include existing rights to reproductive freedom—such as the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion and use contraceptives.
A NO vote on this measure means: The California Constitution would not be changed to expressly include existing rights to reproductive freedom. These rights, however, would continue to exist under other state law.

Arguments and rebuttals

The official argument in favor of Proposition 1 was co‑written by Shannon Udovic‑Constant, Jodi Hicks, and Carol Moon Goldberg, each representing the California Medical Association, the Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and the League of Women Voters of California respectively. In their argument, they wrote in part that "a person's right to an abortion or contraceptives should be protected in California."

California Alliance Pregnancy Care executive director Allison Martinez, Pacific Justice Institute president Brad Dacus, and gynecologist Vansen Wong co‑wrote the rebuttal to the argument in favor of Proposition 1, stating that the constitutional amendment was unnecessary in protecting abortion rights and focusing on the cost to taxpayers.

The official argument against Proposition 1 was co‑written by gynecologist Anne Marie Adams, International Faith Based Coalition president Tak Allen, and Assemblymember Jim Patterson, which stated in part, "Proposition 1 is an extreme, expensive, and pointless waste of tax money that will allow urestricted late-term abortions costing taxpayers millions."

Rebutting the argument against Proposition 1 were California Nurses Association president Sandy Reding, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists District IX chair Kelly McCue, and UCLA Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy faculty director Cary Franklin, who wrote that "[e]xisting California law provides that women have the right to choose to have an abortion prior to viability, or to protect the woman's life or health. Proposition 1 will not change that."

Spending

In early August, neither supporters nor opponents of Proposition 1 had yet to spend any money on the proposed constitutional amendment compared to the six other propositions on the 2022 general election ballot in California, in which US$461 million had already been spent. By August 18, the Yes campaign raised $1.2 million while the No campaign received comparatively little financial support except for a $1000 contribution from Sacramento bishop Jaime Soto. Jeremy White and Lara Korte from Politico wrote that the proposition's opponents "are certain to be outspent." By early September, the Yes campaign received $3.2 million in contributions with negligible donations to the No campaign. Comparatively, the campaigns for the other California ballot propositions spent $568 million by this time.

Media

The San Diego Union-Tribune published two opinion articles representing both sides of the Proposition 1 debate on August 19, with Atkins and Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest CEO Darrah DiGiorgio Johnson representing Yes and Pregnancy Care Clinic development director and Cajon Valley Union School District board member Jo Alegria representing No. On September 8, Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties senior vice president Robert Armenta authored an opinion article in the Los Angeles Times in support of Proposition 1.

Discussion on effects

On June 22, UC Berkeley School of Law senior research fellow Allison Macbeth and UC Hastings College of Law student and Hastings Law Journal editor Elizabeth Bernal warned that the effects of Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 could be overturned in a case similar to Dobbs if the proposed amendment's language does not specify that it codifies the rulings made in Roe, Casey, and Griswold v. Connecticut. Berkeley Law's California Constitution Center countered Macbeth and Bernal in stating that California's direct democracy imposes limitations on the state judiciary in overturning the constitutional amendment, writing that "further initiatives and retention elections are potent threats to courts that ignore majority preferences."

On June 27, Southern California News Group columnist Susan Shelley wrote that Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 could overwrite existing statutory laws that impose limits on abortion, "If SCA 10 is adopted, the 'except' language in current law could be interpreted by a court as an unconstitutional infringement of the 'fundamental right to choose to have an abortion.'" In an opinion article for the Los Angeles Times on July 14, political columnist George Skelton wrote that Proposition 1 could be interpreted as expanding abortion rights to include late‑term abortion instead of the authors' view that the proposition codifies existing state law into the constitution. Skelton stated that the "drafters should have made clear in the measure's language that it was permissible to limit abortion after a fetus reaches viability." Zócalo Public Square columnist Joe Mathews wrote in the Ventura County Star on August 11 that Proposition 1 represented an unnecessary risk, stating that "[s]ome freedoms are so fundamental that we shouldn't let the people vote to take them away."

Michele Goodwin, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, said the amendment would give legal opportunities to people who are denied contraceptives. University of Southern California professor Dima Qato offered support and criticism of Proposition 1, "We don't need more laws when we don't address the root cause of a lack of effectiveness of these laws in [low‑income and minority] communities."

Some of the commentary on Proposition 1 centered on its effectiveness if the federal government imposes a national abortion ban. David Lightman and Lindsey Holden wrote an article in The Sacramento Bee on July 18 that the ballot proposition and the wider issue of abortion could lead to the return of nullification policies. After Lindsey Graham proposed a bill in the US Senate that would impose a national 15-week abortion ban, Politico's Korte, White, and Sakura Cannestra wrote, "A federal ban would almost instantly trigger a slate of lawsuits from states that allow abortions pass 15 weeks, but if the courts ultimately uphold it, states would have to fall into line." Berkeley Law's California Constitution Center executive director, David A. Carillo, told Politico that "[a] state constitutional right allows California's lawyers to position state sovereignty against federal commerce clause powers."

US President Joe Biden and his strategists will be watching Proposition 1 and initiatives in other states to craft a national strategy to protect abortion rights as voters had done in Kansas, where the Democratic National Committee conducted digital canvassing to get out the vote. In a New York article on August 27 and in The Atlantic on September 2, Ed Kilgore and Ronald Brownstein respectively wrote that voter turnout for Proposition 1 could adversely affect the electoral performance of Republican congresspeople such as Ken Calvert, Mike Garcia, Young Kim, Michelle Steel, and David Valadao in the 2022 election for the United States House of Representatives, with the former writing that "[k]eeping these seats in the GOP column (much less flipping Democratic ones) will be a lot harder than it might have been had the Supreme Court not abolished federal constitutional abortion rights."

Protests

See also: 2022 abortion protests

On August 25, a Women's Equality Day event at San Francisco City Hall was interrupted while Supervisor Catherine Stefani was giving a speech by anti-abortion protesters demonstrating against Proposition 1. A number of protesters had traveled from out‑of‑state as far as South Carolina. Competing protests over Proposition 1 occurred at Sather Gate on the University of California, Berkeley campus between Rise Up for Abortion Rights and Pro-Life San Francisco on August 26, raising awareness of the proposed constitutional amendment.

Positions

Support

With the effort to codify reproductive rights into the state constitution being initiated by the California's Democratic political leadership – Newsom, Atkins, and Rendon – the Yes campaign for Proposition 1 received broad support from the California Democratic Party and its membership. The campaign, led by Protect Abortion Rights, maintained a list of supporters that comprised the coalition in support of Proposition 1 and explained in the footer of their website that the campaign was largely supported by Atkins and the Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. In that list, California's two US senators, four US representatives, 11 state senators, and 17 state assemblymembers were part of the Yes campaign's coalition. Dianne Feinstein and Alex Padilla, the state's US senators, officially joined the coalition on July 28. All of California's elected executive branch officials endorsed Proposition 1, which includes Newsom, Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, Secretary of State Shirley Weber, State Treasurer Fiona Ma, State Controller Betty Yee, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, and Attorney General Rob Bonta. Democratic candidates seeking elected office such as state controller candidate Malia Cohen and state assemblymember candidate Diane Papan also indicated their support for Proposition 1.

Local governments compose part of the Yes campaign. Three county boards of supervisors voted unanimously to support amending the state constitution to protect reproductive rights: Alameda on May 10, San Mateo on August 2, and Santa Clara on August 16. On May 24, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted 3–1 to support a constitutional amendment for abortion rights, with the lone vote against being Republican Jim Desmond. The Irvine City Council voted 3–2 on July 12 to support the constitutional amendment. On August 30, four members of the Oakland City Council announced a September 20 vote on a resolution declaring Oakland's support for Proposition 1.

Some Republicans held divergent views from their party on Proposition 1, the latter being opposed, with attorney general candidate Nathan Hochman telling The San Diego Union-Tribune that as long as "Proposition 1 does as its authors state, which is to merely codify California's current law on abortion and the viability standard, I would support Proposition 1." State controller candidate Lanhee Chen gave qualified support for enshrining California's existing abortion law into the state constitution and expressing concern about Proposition 1's language.

The Peace and Freedom Party announced its support for Proposition 1 on September 9 while criticizing the limited scope of the constitutional amending by stating, "It makes explicit the right to abortion and contraceptives in the California constitution. It does not include universal free healthcare, paid family leave and child care, which would give us real reproductive freedom. But still, this is a YES."

The National Women's Political Caucus of California endorsed Proposition 1, stating that the constitutional amendment "will ensure robust protection for both California residents as well as anyone seeking abortions here." The American Association of University Women, Black Women for Wellness Action Project, California National Organization for Women, and Feminist Majority Foundation comprised three other organizations that were part of the Yes campaign. The Women's Foundation California supports the constitutional amendment.

Multiple medical professional organizations expressed their support for Proposition 1. California Medical Association board chair Shannon Udovic‑Constant issued a statement on July 7 on the behalf of the CMA in support of Proposition 1, stating that the organization "strongly believes that medical decisions – including those around abortion and contraception – should be made by patients in consultation with their health care providers." The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists explained their position supporting Proposition 1 by stating that the proposal "would amend the California Constitution to guarantee the fundamental right for patients to make and clinicians to carry out reproductive decisions without medically unjustified legislative interference." Essential Access Health, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare are co‑sponsors for the Yes campaign.

Several labor unions in California joined the Yes campaign. On July 25, the California Nurses Association endorsed Proposition 1 as it would "ensure that those conversations around reproductive health care – including about abortion and contraception – remain between a provider and their patient and are based on science and facts, not someone else's political agenda." The California Teachers Association board of directors endorsed Proposition 1, with CTA president E. Toby Boyd saying, "Our mothers, daughters, partners, sisters and friends should have the freedom and right to determine their healthcare and to make deeply personal decisions on their own, a fundamental human right." The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance in Sacramento and San Francisco, California Faculty Association, California Federation of Teachers, California Labor Federation, SEIU California State Council, and United Food and Commercial Workers State Council are also part of the Yes campaign.

NARAL Pro-Choice America president Mini Timmaraju expressed support for Proposition 1 and said that the constitutional amendment "sends a clear message across the country that California will never stop protecting the freedom to decide." On August 3, Equality California expressed support for Proposition 1, calling it an "opportunity to further solidify California's longtime standing as a nationwide leader in reproductive rights." On August 16, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California announced its support for Proposition 1. Courage California endorsed voting for Proposition 1. Sierra Club California's position on Proposition 1 is Yes, writing that "Sierra Club works to advance environmental and social justice, and support for Proposition 1 is consistent with those values." California Environmental Voters also endorsed Proposition 1. Joining the Yes campaign are the Advocates for Youth, American Civil Liberties Union, California League of United Latin American Citizens, and Media Alliance.

Five of California's newspaper editorial boards published articles in support of Proposition 1: the East Bay Times and The Mercury News jointly on August 13, the Santa Cruz Sentinel on August 30, the Bay Area Reporter on August 31, and the Los Angeles Times on September 5. The Santa Cruz Sentinel's endorsement was qualified, expressing the need for limitations on late-term abortions, "[T]he Legislature can and should pass laws establishing the parameters of when an abortion could be performed, just as legislators do for other established constitutional rights."

Religious organizations representing the Yes campaign include American Atheists; Atheists United; Hadassah Women's Zionist Organization of America; the Jewish Community Relations Council of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin, Sonoma, Alameda, and Contra Costa Counties; and the National Council of Jewish Women CA.

The Bay Area Council represents one business group that joined the Yes campaign.

Opposition

The group leading the campaign against Proposition 1 is California Together. The California Republican Party announced its opposition to Proposition 1 on August 19. The No campaign is supported by state senator Brian Dahle and assemblymembers Megan Dahle and Jim Patterson, the latter of whom co‑wrote the official argument against Proposition 1. State treasurer candidate Jack Guerrero cited his Roman Catholic faith and called the proposed constitutional amendment a "radical agenda...which would legalize taxpayer-funded abortion on demand to the moment of birth for any reason or no reason at all." Carl DeMaio, a member of the San Diego City Council from 2008 to 2012 and chairman of Reform California, recommended a No vote on Proposition 1, stating that the amendment "would repeal the current ban on abortions after 23 weeks of a pregnancy and allow the right to a late‑term abortion up to the moment of birth." In early August, San Clemente city council member Steve Knoblock proposed an anti‑abortion resolution to show his opposition to Proposition 1. Tom Campbell, a Chapman University professor and former US representative, wrote an opinion article in The Orange County Register on August 20, stating that the State Legislature should "withdraw Proposition 1 and offer an alternative that protects the right to an abortion up to viability – current state law."

The California Catholic Conference issued a statement opposing SCA 10, stating that the amendment would "legalize and protect abortion up to the point just prior to delivery" and calling for Catholics in the state to oppose the ballot measure. The statement was signed by Los Angeles Archbishop José Horacio Gómez, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, and bishops from 10 other California dioceses. The organization crafted pew cards and flyers to distribute to churchgoers, instructing them to vote against Proposition 1. The California Family Council wrote that "Proposition 1 is an extreme and costly proposal that does nothing to advance women's health." The American Council of Evangelicals and California Knights of Columbus also represent part of the No campaign.

The American Solidarity Party of California stated their opposition to Proposition 1, "No other state has ever tried to amend into its state constitution the right to abortion at any stage, even late-term abortions."

Feminists for Life opposed Senate Constitutional Amendment 10, with its president, Serrin Foster, stating in part, "Rather than assist families and pregnant women with practical resources, California legislators seek to codify abortion in a constitutional amendment — and make California an abortion destination." The organization later joined the campaign against Proposition 1 with the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, Democrats for Life, Live Action, Students for Life, Walk for Life West Coast, and William Jessup University.

Southern California News Group editorial board member John Seiler wrote an opinion article in The San Bernardino Sun on September 3 in which he stated that he would vote against Proposition 1, noting that the ballot measure will still pass.

Neutral or no position

On June 24, the San Francisco Chronicle found that the Republican candidates campaigning for statewide office in California were largely quiet about abortion rights and the effort to codify those rights into the state constitution. On the hesitance of Republican politicians to discuss abortion, Fullerton College professor Jodi Balma told the Los Angeles Times, "I think Republicans in California would like to pretend [the abortion issue] doesn't exist." In a question and answer interview with The San Diego Union-Tribune, insurance commissioner candidate Robert Howell did not share his position on Proposition 1, writing in part, "I do not think the Insurance Commissioner's Office has any control of this issue. We will need to see what the people of California have to say in November."

In San Mateo, Rod Linhares was the lone city council candidate who did not share their position on either abortion or Proposition 1, with all other candidates for the San Mateo City Council affirming their support for both.

Opinion polling

Preferences

Poll source	Date(s)	Sample		Margin of error				Lead	Ref.
					Yes	No	Undecided
Berkeley IGS	August 9–15, 2022	9,254	RV	± 2.0%	71%	18%	10%	53%
Rasmussen Reports	August 10–11, 2022	1,006	LV	± 2.0%	66%	27%	7%	39%
Probolsky Research	August 4–9, 2022	900	LV	± 3.3%	67%	29%	4%	38%
Public Policy Institute of California	July 8–15, 2022	1,648	A	± 3.4%	68%	29%	2%	39%
		1,132	LV	± 4.1%	73%	27%	1%	46%

Voting

Voting on Proposition 1 will coincide with all other elections in California on November 8, 2022, with polls open from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm PST (UTC−8). All active registered voters in California will be mailed a ballot ahead of the election, which will begin no later than October 10. For a ballot to be considered valid, it must be returned and postmarked on or before November 8 and received by November 15. The ballot can also be delivered in‑person at a ballot drop box, polling place, or county elections office by 8:00 pm on November 8. The deadline for eligible voters to register online or by mail is 15 days before the election – October 24. Eligible voters who register after the October 24 deadline must do so at a county elections office, polling place, or vote center to cast their vote in the election, but have until 8:00 pm on November 8 to do so. Voters in 27 counties will have the option to vote early in person from October 29 to November 8. According to the California Voter Bill of Rights, people who are already in line by 8:00 pm to vote can cast one, even if it is past the deadline.

California voters can receive information and assistance in 10 languages: English, Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Khmer, Korean, Tagalog, Thai and Vietnamese.

Result

For Proposition 1 to pass, it will need approval from a majority of the voters. If the proposition passes, it will enter into effect five days after its certification.

Statewide

Proposition 1

Choice	Votes	%
Result not yet known
Total votes	—	100.00
Source: California Secretary of State

Proposition 1 results (excluding invalid votes)
Yes TBD	No TBD
▲ 50%

By county

Result by county
     Yes      No

County						Votes			Registered		Eligible
		Yes		No
		Votes	Per.	Votes	Per.	Valid	Invalid	Total	Total	Turnout	Total	Turnout
	Alameda		%		%					%		%
	Alpine		%		%					%		%
	Amador		%		%					%		%
	Butte		%		%					%		%
	Calaveras		%		%					%		%
	Colusa		%		%					%		%
	Contra Costa		%		%					%		%
	Del Norte		%		%					%		%
	El Dorado		%		%					%		%
	Fresno		%		%					%		%
	Glenn		%		%					%		%
	Humboldt		%		%					%		%
	Imperial		%		%					%		%
	Inyo		%		%					%		%
	Kern		%		%					%		%
	Kings		%		%					%		%
	Lake		%		%					%		%
	Lassen		%		%					%		%
	Los Angeles		%		%					%		%
	Madera		%		%					%		%
	Marin		%		%					%		%
	Mariposa		%		%					%		%
	Mendocino		%		%					%		%
	Merced		%		%					%		%
	Modoc		%		%					%		%
	Mono		%		%					%		%
	Monterey		%		%					%		%
	Napa		%		%					%		%
	Nevada		%		%					%		%
	Orange		%		%					%		%
	Placer		%		%					%		%
	Plumas		%		%					%		%
	Riverside		%		%					%		%
	Sacramento		%		%					%		%
	San Benito		%		%					%		%
	San Bernardino		%		%					%		%
	San Diego		%		%					%		%
	San Francisco		%		%					%		%
	San Joaquin		%		%					%		%
	San Luis Obispo		%		%					%		%
	San Mateo		%		%					%		%
	Santa Barbara		%		%					%		%
	Santa Clara		%		%					%		%
	Santa Cruz		%		%					%		%
	Shasta		%		%					%		%
	Sierra		%		%					%		%
	Siskiyou		%		%					%		%
	Solano		%		%					%		%
	Sonoma		%		%					%		%
	Stanislaus		%		%					%		%
	Sutter		%		%					%		%
	Tehama		%		%					%		%
	Trinity		%		%					%		%
	Tulare		%		%					%		%
	Tuolumne		%		%					%		%
	Ventura		%		%					%		%
	Yolo		%		%					%		%
	Yuba		%		%					%		%
	California		%		%					%		%
Total		Votes	Per.	Votes	Per.	Valid	Invalid	Total	Total	Turnout	Total	Turnout
		Yes		No		Votes			Registered		Eligible
Source: California Secretary of State

See also

• 2022 Kansas Value Them Both Amendment

External links

• California Proposition 1, Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment (2022) at Ballotpedia
• Protect Abortion Rights, Yes on Proposition 1 campaign website
• California Together, No on Proposition 1 campaign website

Senate hearings and debate

• Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on June 14, 2022 (1:46:20–2:45:21)
• Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee hearing on June 14, 2022
• Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on June 16, 2022 (0:02:38–0:18:44)
• Senate floor session on June 20, 2022 (1:26:24–1:51:00)

Assembly hearing and debate

• Assembly Judiciary Committee hearing on June 23, 2022
• Assembly floor session on June 27, 2022 (1:38:09–2:36:52)